State requests court to reject defense presented by Yameen regarding currency exchange transactions

The Criminal Court on Tuesday proceeded with a hearing in the V. Aarah case, following a Supreme Court ruling which upheld the High Court's decision to exclude certain evidence presented in the appeal.

Former President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom was sentenced to seven years in prison and fined $5 million after being found guilty of money laundering. Additionally, he was handed a four-year prison sentence following a conviction for accepting bribes. However, the High Court overturned these convictions on April 18, 2024.

The High Court's ruling issued three primary directives. These include granting a fresh opportunity to submit and deliberate on pre-trial motions, excluding new evidence presented by the prosecution, and setting aside the interpretation contained in point 68 of the lower court's report for a retrial at the Criminal Court.

Although the state appealed the High Court's directive to exclude new evidence to the Supreme Court, the apex court upheld the lower court's decision, ruling that the order to set aside the evidence was correct.

Consequently, as the Criminal Court resumes the case in accordance with that ruling, Tuesday's hearing focused on presenting pretrial motions.

During the hearing, State Prosecutor Ahmed Shafeeu requested the court to reject several oral witnesses presented by President Yameen's defense. These witnesses were proposed to testify in support of the defense's claim that the transaction in question was a legitimate currency exchange.

The state has submitted a pre-trial motion requesting the court to reject the defense presented by Yameen regarding the currency exchange of US dollars.

Defense lawyers argued that the state has handled the entire MMPRC case with a specific "design" aimed at treating President Yameen differently from others involved. They noted that a clear disparity exists between the state's actions toward President Yameen and other individuals charged in the MMPRC embezzlement scandal. Furthermore, the defense stated that the state is merely attempting to create an illusion of fairness and justice in its proceedings regarding this case.

Speaking during the hearing, President Yameen stated that during the investigation, he was presented with a document containing his own handwriting, which was alleged to be a bank record. He noted that he had informed investigators at the time that he would address the specifics of that document during the trial. President Yameen clarified that while he had indicated he would only discuss the document—purportedly from HSBC—in court, the prosecution had interpreted this stance as him exercising his right to remain silent. He further emphasized that his decision not to comment on those matters during the investigation was due to concerns that his statements could be used against him.

President Yameen requested some time to trace the document.

The defense has requested the court to order the state to disclose any documents related to the V. Aarah case that have not yet been made public.

Furthermore, the defense requested details regarding the private hiring of expert Mark Andrew Rigby, even if his testimony were to be accepted. Specifically, the defense sought to clarify the terms of his engagement and the compensation he received in return. Rigby was presented by the prosecution to testify to the integrity of data included in a state-submitted report.

In addition to that witness, the defense requested during the hearing that the court reject several other witnesses presented by the prosecution.

In response to the arguments presented by the defense, the state prosecutor contended that if the transaction truly pertained to a legitimate currency exchange, there would have been no reason for the defendant to remain silent during the investigation. The prosecutor further noted that throughout the proceedings in both the lower court and the High Court, President Yameen’s legal team failed to provide any justifiable reason for believing that statements made during the investigation would be used against him.

The state prosecutor further noted that the investigation summons would clearly specify the exact nature of the case for which the individual is being questioned.

Judge Ali Nadeem is presiding over this case at the Criminal Court. The next hearing will focus on delivering a ruling regarding the pre-trial submissions. The judge stated that this session will be scheduled to take place following the hearing for the Fuggiri case, which is set for October 12.